Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[GKC]

That ‘trenchant commentary’ is, at best, a caricature of the vast majority of sixteenth century Reformers. It’s the equivalent of equating the sometimes poorly catechised but exuberant Marian devotion of mediaeval peasants as nothing but paganism and idolatry.

And it’s a paraphrase of Chesterton/THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CONVERSION, chap. II, pp.31-32, 1929.

Which is fine by me. Mr. Shea and I are both Chestertonians.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m not writing a thesis here. Nor am I a particularly good writer, or thinker.

No one is asking you to write a thesis but to explain your position, I think that is reasonable.

And I beg to differ in that you are not a good writer or thinker. You are very eloquent for the most part and also demonstrate to be pretty coherent in your posts, except in this particular subject. The same thing happens to me in regards to some subjects.

I think you are still working out how to express your ideas and you are not willing to recognize the participation of the Catholic Church just because you don’t want to trust Her in anything, this much you have made pretty clear. If you were to recognize this, a significant portion of your belief system would be in need of restructuring.

Like they say in North Texas: “Been there, done that, got the t-shirt”

Peace,

 

[benhur]

Just a thought…
Reform needs to happen within a group to correct or improve the group - - yes?

That is right.The “group” is the Body of Christ, the Ecclesia, those called out, the elect, etc., etc.

If the "reform causes a complete separation - is it not then a rebellion?

Is there a complete separation ? Are we not all brethren if in Christ…yes.

 

[joe371]

JRKH;12186723:

That is right.The “group” is the Body of Christ, the Ecclesia, those called out, the elect, etc., etc.
Is there a complete separation ? Are we not all brethren if in Christ…yes.

We are all brothers in Christ. What separates us is doctrine, in some cases, and the obvious fact that we belong to different churches. If doctrinal truth does not matter to Jesus, then Jesus’ fractured Mystical Body, is probably not a big concern to Him.

 

[JRKH]

That is right.The “group” is the Body of Christ, the Ecclesia, those called out, the elect, etc., etc.
Is there a complete separation ? Are we not all brethren if in Christ…yes.

In this matter I think it would depend on who you asked and when over the course of the last 500 years…

Peace
James

 

[benhur]

I think that Mark Shea is trying to prove a point. If you want to put in in a more palatable way, it could be summed up as thus:

Protestant revolutionaries of old said to the Catholic Church:…“We want your Bible, but we don’t want you. We’re going to take your book and decide for ourselves what it really means.”

Maybe I’m way off base here, but the views of some Protestants (certainly not all) reminds me of the attitude of rebellious teenagers, who cannot accept that their elders (the Catholic church) just might have a bit more wisdom and truth and experience behind them in comparison to a very young person (Protestants).

Not that young people can’t discern truth to, but a rebellious attitude can get in the way of seeing things properly. And they are convinced that the elders in their lives can’t possibly know what they’re talking about. I’m not trying to offend the Protestants here, just trying to further explore Mark Shea’s reasoning. Mark Shea does get a bit snarky at times. He can’t really help it. But he does have a point, however crudely he may put it.

I will run with you on this and use the book of Job. For indeed age should teach wisdom but the truth of God was put in a deep fashion in a youth (Elihu) who respectfully waited his turn and was “right on” as the older folk were not and were chastized. The older folk did not rebel and took there lumps… So you see it could very well be the CC rebelled partly (she did reform a bit, counter reformation) by not accepting even anathemizing some of the truth of reformers.

 

[benhur]

benhur;12186887:

We are all brothers in Christ. What separates us is doctrine, in some cases, and the obvious fact that we belong to different churches. If doctrinal truth does not matter to Jesus, then Jesus’ fractured Mystical Body, is probably not a big concern to Him.

Yes doctrine, even sin, separates us but the first thread called for complete separation, which is impossible if we are indeed in Christ…Everything matters and is discerned by the Spirit. The fracturedness of Israel did not deter God from fulfilling promises and she perfectly produced the Savior, right on time. So to will the Bride be presented perfectly and right on time. Go figure.

 

[Denise1957]

I will run with you on this and use the book of Job. For indeed age should teach wisdom but the truth of God was put in a deep fashion in a youth (Elihu) who respectfully waited his turn and was “right on” as the older folk were not and were chastized. The older folk did not rebel and took there lumps… So you see it could very well be the CC rebelled partly (she did reform a bit, counter reformation) by not accepting even anathemizing some of the truth of reformers.

I see what you’re saying. There are always exceptions, but in general, older people do know more than younger people, and older folks also have more wisdom and understanding about life in general. I think we all have known (or have been one ourselves) a rebellious teen who thinks that they know it all and won’t listen to reason. It’s difficult, but we have to try to be patient with the teen, and realize that they will come around eventually, though it may take a LONG time.

 

[benhur]

LOL…Could it be as simple as this: God established His church (He said - I will build my church…") comprised of all fallible sinners, beginning with the fallible apostles, and as God did in the 1st century, God continues to ineffably guide His Church into all truth until the end of time?

yes and no. Reminds me of AA who are asked to always admit their original depraved inclination.That is part of the freeing truth but the power really is in admitting the new creation we are in God, saints, perfect in him, by grace. The church is compromised of saints whose flesh has been crucified and are fallible only when in the flesh(dead) and not walking in the spirit of the new man.

 

[benhur]

I see what you’re saying. There are always exceptions, but in general, older people do know more than younger people, and older folks also have more wisdom and understanding about life in general. I think we all have known (or have been one ourselves) a rebellious teen who thinks that they know it all and won’t listen to reason. It’s difficult, but we have to try to be patient with the teen, and realize that they will come around eventually, though it may take a LONG time.

yes thanks,cool .But we also know you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and older folk can be stubborn as mules, set in there ways, even wrong ways. Sin builds like cancer, with time.

 

[Denise1957]

yes thanks,cool .But we also know you can’t teach an old dog new tricks and older folk can be stubborn as mules, set in there ways, even wrong ways. Sin builds like cancer, with time.

Yes, older folks can be very stubborn. How can we discern if an older person is being stubborn as opposed to them being convinced that they hold views that are real and true?

 

[joe371]

yes and no. Reminds me of AA who are asked to always admit their original depraved inclination.That is part of the freeing truth but the power really is in admitting the new creation we are in God, saints, perfect in him, by grace. The church is compromised of saints whose flesh has been crucified and are fallible only when in the flesh(dead) and not walking in the spirit of the new man.

I hate yes-no answers. LOL… I agree with what you said, but that really does not answer my question:

Could it be as simple as this: God established His church (He said - I will build my church…") comprised of all fallible sinners, beginning with the fallible apostles, and as God did in the 1st century, God continues to ineffably guide His Church into all truth until the end of time?

 

[Tomyris]

Thanks for replying…
Couple of things.
I find it interesting that you reference the Confessions, your Pastor and “Seminary Types” in your answer. I wonder how (in your mind) this is any different than what the Catholic Church does? For we too reference “Confessions” (Church documents), Pastors (Clergy), and “Seminary types” (Theologians). We sound very very similar here…

That said - I would like to take your answer above about individuals disagreeing and extend it to communities. Now it is one ekklesia who declares that flowered wallpaper is God’s Will and another ekklesia down the street declares that flowered wallpaper is of the devil and anyone using it is hell bound. Remember, each group is sincere, believes that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and can quote Scripture to support their position.

In the church model that has evolved since the reformation - What mechanism covers this?

I look forward to your reply on this.

Peace
James

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention. You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation. Tell me how the Catholic Church resolves differences with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and then we can discuss how Protestants resolve their differences. It happens, by the way. I’ve been involved in at least one denominational merger. It’s not just Split City. I wonder if the Catholics have been more successful at reuniting their factions than the Protestants have been. And since the Reformation, there has been the Old Catholic split, and perhaps other Catholic splits. It is by no means a Protestant invention.

The Reformers, for the most part, did not want to split. They were excommunicated. I can’t speak for the enthusiasts.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention. You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation. Tell me how the Catholic Church resolves differences with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and then we can discuss how Protestants resolve their differences. It happens, by the way. I’ve been involved in at least one denominational merger. It’s not just Split City. I wonder if the Catholics have been more successful at reuniting their factions than the Protestants have been. And since the Reformation, there has been the Old Catholic split, and perhaps other Catholic splits. It is by no means a Protestant invention.

That’s 3 branches of Apostolic Churches. That in no way compares the denominational explosion with Protestantism.

The Reformers, for the most part, did not want to split. They were excommunicated. I can’t speak for the enthusiasts.

The Reformers were split from the start.

Another Martin from Germany is the biggest witness to this: Bucer. The dissension was not limited from the Catholic Church, but influenced by the political powers that permeated the Reformers in the same manner it permeated the Catholic Church. Even when the Reformers had a common enemy in the Catholic Church, they did not have division and only fragmented more and more, first by Country lines, then by doctrinal opinions… it has not stopped.

 

[benhur]

Yes, older folks can be very stubborn. How can we discern if an older person is being stubborn as opposed to them being convinced that they hold views that are real and true?

Yes, just like how did Jews know which prophet to listen to or 16 th century folk, to listen to Loyola or Luther, both Catholics at the beginning, or right here on this forum ?

 

[benhur]

I hate yes-no answers. LOL… I agree with what you said, but that really does not answer my question:

Could it be as simple as this: God established His church (He said - I will build my church…") comprised of all fallible sinners, beginning with the fallible apostles, and as God did in the 1st century, God continues to ineffably guide His Church into all truth until the end of time?

yes to your question just with the further qualification of just who compromised the church (saints).

 

[joe371]

yes to your question just with the further qualification of just who compromised the church (saints).

Who compromised the church?

 

[Contarini]

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention. You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation. Tell me how the Catholic Church resolves differences with the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and then we can discuss how Protestants resolve their differences. It happens, by the way. I’ve been involved in at least one denominational merger. It’s not just Split City. I wonder if the Catholics have been more successful at reuniting their factions than the Protestants have been. And since the Reformation, there has been the Old Catholic split, and perhaps other Catholic splits. It is by no means a Protestant invention.

The splits among “apostolic” bodies are tragic and played a major role in facilitating the rise of Islam. The Catholic Church regards the healing of those splits as its major ecumenical priority, and in fact a lot of the smaller Eastern churches have come back into union with Rome. The difference with modern denominationalism is that each of the four major divisions claims to be the true Church, and one can evaluate the claims. I don’t myself think that the claims of the two smaller “non-Chalcedonian” communions are very strong. The Old Catholics have an even weaker case–indeed, I’m not quite sure what they do claim for themselves.

The problem with Protestant denominationalism, in my view, is that it creates a situation of such chaos that there isn’t a meaningful concept of the visible Church left. Protestant denominations are for the most part comfortable with being just a fragment of the Church, with only a nebulous concept of just what the broader Church is to which they owe allegiance, and indeed often ignoring any concept of a broader Church at all.

I know that this is rather the opposite of the common claim made by Catholic apologists who don’t know any better and think that Protestant denominations each claim to be the true Church:shrug:. If they did, we could at least evaluate the claims and discern which, if any, are credible.

There is no “there there” in Protestantism. We could start with the two original “magisterial” traditions: Lutheran and Reformed. If that were all, we could evaluate each against the other. But in each case we have to deal with several splits on a conservative/liberal spectrum, with the conservatives claiming stricter adherence to the substantive doctrines of the tradition and the liberals greater faithfulness to the basic methodology of the tradition. One can’t simply dismiss these liberal claims, because Protestantism itself is based in a radical hermeneutic that questions established doctrines in the light of basic principles.

This is an even more serious concern when we look at the broad Reformed tradition (basically all of Protestantism except for Lutheranism and Anabaptism). What we find is that group after group uses the basic claim of sola scriptura to question specific elements of the original Reformed synthesis. And each group in turn, develops further splitoffs and further liberal/conservative splits.

Now I don’t agree with the common Catholic claim that the mere existence of these splits makes it impossible for any one of them to be right. But I think it is clear that this isn’t the same thing as the divisions among apostolic churches, tragic as those are.

The Reformers, for the most part, did not want to split. They were excommunicated. I can’t speak for the enthusiasts.

I think that’s a pious Protestant fiction. They came to the conclusion, pretty much all of them, that the papacy was Antichrist–that is to say, that the papacy and mainstream scholastic theology had radically corrupted the Gospel and were a parasitic growth on the Church. Their “reform” efforts were carried on under that assumption. While some of them, such as Bucer and Melanchthon, were willing to compromise with reform-minded Catholics (and with each other), none of the major early Protestant leaders had any desire for reunion or compromise with the Pope–not that I can see anyway. Peter Matheson’s essay “martin Bucer and the Old Church,” in Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, ed. David Wright, is helpful here, precisely because Bucer was a relatively “irenic” Reformer.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

That ‘trenchant commentary’ is, at best, a caricature of the vast majority of sixteenth century Reformers

Not at all. It is, perhaps, a hyperbolic meme, which makes its point rather nicely.

Just like this, too, may seem to be a caricature of a particular high school student’s sentiments regarding Algebra. But it does make the point in a humorous but trenchant way.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20444&d=1405909774

I wouldn’t call the above necessarily a caricature, but it does present the sentiments accurately. No one really believes that the author uses algebra only an estimated 3% of his life. It’s just a meme which represents this concept: why did I have to spend so much time learning something I hardly ever use?

Similarly, the “knocking the bishop’s miter off his head” comment is not to be taken literally, but as a meme displaying the sentiments of the Reformers.

IOW: We don’t need anyone to tell us what to believe…except when we do need someone to tell us what to believe (namely: what books belong in the Bible.)

 

[pablope]

One thing that really puzzles me is the theological novelty proposed by Catholics that denominational division was a Protestant invention.

I think there is distinction and it has to do with the paradigm that it is the Bible and me and I can interpret it the way I want it…they threw out the authority of bishops…the OO, EO still retain the authority of bishops, in contrast with the protestants.

You will recall that the OO and the EO split centuries before the Reformation.